{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Now that people are starting to absorb the intent and motivations of the Special Counsel investigation it’s worth remembering dirty cop-Robert Mueller interviewed President Donald Trump... six days after the FBI launched a criminal “obstruction of justice” investigation, and ten months after the FBI launched the counterintelligence investigation….The May 16, 2017, dirty cop-Mueller meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. The dirty cop-Mueller Report shows there never was a Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy case to begin with; and with the report showing how most of dirty cop-Mueller’s investigative time was spent gathering evidence for an ‘obstruction case’; and with new revelations from Andrew McCabe, John Dowd and dirty cop-Mueller officials overlayed on the previous Strzok/Page texts; we can now clearly reconcile the May 16th, 2017, meeting between President Trump, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and dirty cop-Robert Mueller. Here’s how…FBI Director scumbag-James Comey was fired on Tuesday May 9th, 2017. According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation the next day, Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. These McCabe statements line up with with text message conversations between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok – (same dates 5/9 and 5/10)...

{foxnews.com} ~ House Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., issued a subpoena Friday to obtain the "complete and unredacted" version of Special Counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller's Russia report... as well as the underlying materials -- the next step in what is almost certain to be a lengthy political and legal battle between Democrats and Republicans over the report. "This includes, but is not limited to, all summaries, exhibits, indices, tables of contents or other tables or figures, appendices, supplements, addenda or any other attachments whether written or attached in a separate electronic format," the subpoena says. scumbag liar-Nadler's push comes a day after a redacted version of the report was made public. The White House has hailed the report, which found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in 2016, as a victory. But Democrats have pointed to dirty cop-Mueller's review of 10 instances where Trump may be considered to have obstructed justice -- although the special counsel did not conclude that Trump committed a crime -- as well as other details in the report as justification for Congress to see the report, as for dirty cop-Mueller to testify to Congress. scumbag liar-Nadler and other Democrats have been particularly opposed to Attorney General William Barr's decision to release a redacted version of the report to Congress. Barr said that he, along with special counsel, identified four areas of the report that needed redactions, including grand jury material, information the intelligence community believes would reveal intelligence sources and methods, any material that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions, and information that could implicate the privacy or reputational interests of “peripheral players.”...They will never ever be satisfied with any documents. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-judiciary-committee-issues-s...

{ dailywire.com } ~ On Thursday, MSNBC's Brian Williams attempted to poke holes in Attorney General William Barr's summary of the newly released redacted report by Special Counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller... After inviting on Donald Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow, Williams suggested that Barr misled the public by concluding that dirty cop-Mueller's report found "no collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in election interference. Sekulow responded by reading directly from the report clearly stating that it "did not establish" collusion. "Counselor, thank you very much for joining us," Wiliams began in a moment highlighted by the Washington Examiner. "My first question, I'm afraid, is going to verge on plain English: Where did the attorney general get off with that characterization this morning, including four mentions that there was 'no collusion'? What document was he reading compared to the one we're left with?" Sekulow responded by simply reading directly from the second page of dirty cop-Mueller's now publicly available report. "Well, page 2 of the document says, 'the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,'" Sekulow read. "So it's right from the document itself," he added. "Have you read Part 1?" asked Williams. "I have read Part 1 and Part 2," Sekulow replied. "You find good news in here for the president and the administration?" asked Williams, suggestively. Sekulow answered by reading another direct quote from the report: "Page 181: 'The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume 1 [Section IV, supra],' that's the Russian contacts, 'amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law, including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws.'" Sekulow then answered Williams' loaded question directly: "Yeah, I think it's a very good win."...

{ dailycaller.com } ~ Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum criticized Democratic Rep. Sean Maloney as “very rude”... after the New York congressman kept talking over her during their Thursday night conversation about the dirty cop-Mueller report. After MacCallum asked Maloney if things had been “blown out of proportion” during the last two years, the Democratic lawmaker switched the focus to several incidents related in the report that some have interpreted as attempts at obstruction. “Excuse me,” MacCallum interrupted. “I have let you explain yourself in great detail. I just want to say one thing and I will let you go on …” “Excuse me, I have something to say,” the Fox News anchor said after Maloney continued talking. “The point is Carter Page …” said Maloney. But a visibly annoyed MacCallum was finished playing nice: You are very rude. You’re very rude, sir. That was rude. I’m trying to interject for a moment. I don’t want to interrupt but I want to say one thing about the underlying crime here. When there is not an underlying crime with regard to collusion, it’s difficult to say someone is obstructing something. So, you just laid out your thinking about why you think the president was being obstructive. But if there is no underlying crime. That’s one of the reasons dirty cop-Robert Mueller was unable to make a finding there. I’m sorry for getting heated, but please go ahead...

{ bloomberg.com } ~ Energy Secretary Rick Perry is planning to leave the Trump administration and is finalizing the terms and timing of his departure... according to two people familiar with his plans. While Perry’s exit isn’t imminent and one person familiar with the matter said the former Texas governor still hasn’t fully made up his mind, three people said he has been seriously considering his departure for weeks. All of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. An Energy Department spokeswoman, Shaylyn Hynes, rejected the idea that Perry would be leaving the administration any time soon. “He is happy where he is serving President Trump and leading the Department of Energy,” she said in a statement. The White House press office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Perry, an Air Force veteran who was previously Texas’s longest-serving governor, has enjoyed a good rapport with President Donald Trump. Trump personally asked Perry if he’d take over as Homeland Security secretary, before the president asked Kirstjen Nielsen to resign earlier this month, two of the people said. Perry declined, they said. Perry has been preparing the agency’s deputy secretary, Dan Brouillette, for the transition, two people said. It’s unclear if Trump would name Brouillette as secretary. Part of Perry’s motivation in seeking to leave before the end of Trump’s first term is a desire to build his income before retiring, two people said...

Louis DeBroux: Conservative icon Ben Shapiro once wrote that President Donald Trump’s superpower “is that he can irritate people into doing the dumbest things imaginable.” At the time he was speaking of Trump’s trolling of Democrat Senator Elizabeth dinky-Warren until she took a DNA test to prove her claims of Native American ancestry, and instead proved that she was, at most, 1/1024th Native American, andtherefore a fraud.

Last week, President Trump didn’t just throw gas on the fire of the illegal-immigration debate, he backed up a tanker truck to the fire and opened the valves.

When word leaked out of an internal White House discussion as to the wisdom and feasibility of taking captured illegals and transporting them to sanctuary cities, obstructionist Democrats went (more) insane, enraged that Trump would dump illegals on their doorsteps. In response, Trump tweeted, “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!”

Democrats, having lost their collective minds, exposed not only their abject hypocrisy, but their cynical politicization of an issue that is deeply impacting and harming millions of Americans.

House Speaker Nancy Pulosi, suddenly terrified of seeing thousands of illegals in her front yard, self-righteously declared Trump’s threat “unworthy of the presidency,” calling the idea “cruel,” “warped,” and “despicable.” Of course, when illegals jumped Pulosi’s fence last year, she didn’t invite them into her living room, she had cops haul them off.

Other Democrats were equally terrified. Democrat Senator and 2020 presidential candidate scumbag-Cory Booker declared that busing illegals to sanctuary cities would “make us less safe.” New York Rep. scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler protested that Trump had “no right” to do so. Seattle’s mayor called Trump a “despot.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board points out legitimate problems with President Trump’s plan. While the constitutionality of the plan can be debated, there are other unintended consequences that could undermine it. With the 2020 census just around the corner, transporting tens of thousands of illegals to Democrat-heavy districts could actually result in more seats in Congress after reapportionment. The WSJ also argues that busing illegals to “sanctuary” cities would lend legitimacy to the idea that cities and states can defy federal immigration law and enact their own policies on immigration.

On the other hand, one would have to be utterly blind to avoid the glaring double standard. Democrat-controlled cities and states refuse to enforce federal immigration law, even going so far as to actively assist illegals in evading federal authorities. So it seems a bit disingenuous to argue that Trump is breaking the law by offering to give them exactly what they have asked for. And what other segment of the population can break laws with impunity and not only go unpunished but be rewarded?

Some believe this is a political stunt by Trump, but others believe Trump has every intention on following through. Trump also declared, “The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities. We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or its poor management & high taxes!”

Regardless of whether this threat is enacted as policy, Trump has dealt Democrats another blow politically, exposing their rank hypocrisy.

Democrats repeatedly declare there is no border crisis, and attack Trump when he claims illegals are responsible for tens of thousands of cases of assault, rape, murder, and other crimes against American citizens. Democrats claim illegals are all just hard-working people looking to make a better life in America. They claim illegals commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans, are a net benefit to the economy, and make us a better country by making us more diverse.

If all that is true (and, to be fair, it often is), why are “progressive,” open-borders Democrats terrified of Trump’s plan? One would think they’d be eager to usher tens of thousands of these wonderful, law-abiding (except for the whole illegally crossing the border thing, and the identity theft, and the other crimes) people into their cities.

The truth is that Democrats could not care less about the plight of these poor immigrants. In 2009-2010, with Barack scumbag/liar-nObama in the White House and Democrats holding supermajorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats made no effort to deal with the decades-old immigration problem.

Why? Because illegal immigration is far more useful to Democrats as a bludgeon against their Republican foes. If President Trump is able to secure the border and get an immigration-reform package through Congress, then the crisis is solved, and they can no longer accuse Republicans of being heartless and racist.

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must be taking night classes at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Government.

Pelosi, the 79-year-old third-highest ranking official in the U.S. government, was speaking to the Center for American Progress today when she mistakenly said there are “two co-equal branches” of government, before correcting herself to say there are three.

Watch:

“First of all, let me just say, we take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.

“Democrats take that oath seriously, and we are committed to honoring our oath of office. I’m not sure that our Republican colleagues share that commitment, and I’m not sure that the president of the United States does, too,” she claimed.

“So, in light of the fact that the beauty of the Constitution is a system of checks and balances— two co-equal branches— three co-equal branches of government,” she corrected with a laugh.

“A check and balance on each other,” she continued. “Con— Constitution spells out the pri— pa, uh, the duties of Congress and one of them is oversight of the president of the United States, another one of them is to impeach the president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

In November, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallied supporters on Facebook to pitch in and help Democrats take back “all three chambers of Congress.”

“…the Progressive movement works and it wins in all districts…If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress– three chambers of government…,” she said during the virtual appearance.

She clarified that she meant the “presidency, the Senate and the House.”

According to the Constitution, the three branches of government are the legislative, executive and judicial.

Below: Nancy Pelosi is continuing to promote the false narrative that President Trump is involved in a cover-up and therefore may be guilty of an impeachable offense. Millie Weaver joins Alex to break down the propaganda being used to overturn the democratic election of 2016